Liberty University lawsuit appeal nears a pivotal test of religious autonomy vs. workplace protections
liberty university is at the center of a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case weighing how religious freedom claims interact with federal workplace protections after a former transgender employee challenged her firing.
What Happens When Liberty University and a former employee dispute the reach of the “ministerial exception”?
Oral arguments were delivered Tuesday to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in a lawsuit involving Liberty University and a former employee, Ellenor Zinski, who was hired under the name Jonathon. Zinski sued in 2024 after being fired in 2023 for coming out as transgender, following her signing of a doctrinal statement affirming the school’s beliefs.
Judges heard competing arguments from Liberty Counsel, representing the university, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Zinski. The core question presented in court centered on whether Zinski’s job falls under the “ministerial exception, ” a legal doctrine that can allow religious institutions to make certain employment decisions when roles are religious in nature.
Matthew Callahan of the ACLU argued to the court that Zinski’s position was not that of a direct messenger of faith and therefore should remain protected by federal workplace discrimination law. He framed the issue as a boundary-setting exercise: certain roles may be considered messengers of faith, while many others—he referenced positions such as groundskeepers, janitors, and IT apprentices—still fall under federal protections.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, argued that the exception should apply to Zinski. Staver told the court that the ministerial exception has broadened beyond traditional clergy to individuals who perform what he characterized as a ministerial function, and he asserted that Zinski’s work in the IT department met that standard. He also argued Liberty’s decision was protected by the First Amendment, emphasizing what he described as church autonomy.
What If the court draws a narrow line—or a broad one—between religious hiring rights and worker protections?
The dispute presented to the Fourth Circuit is not only about one employee’s role, but about how a limiting principle would work if religious employers can invoke doctrine for positions that are not overtly religious. In the hearing, the ACLU’s position pressed the idea that federal protections for workers cannot be bypassed based on an employer’s religious beliefs, including for transgender employees.
attributed to ACLU of Virginia Senior Transgender Rights Attorney Wyatt Rolla, the ACLU emphasized that “no employer can sidestep federal protections for workers” and that no one, including transgender employees, should be fired because of who they are.
Liberty Counsel argued that Liberty University can require employees to follow the university’s doctrinal beliefs, including beliefs on gender and sexuality, and that its authority to do so is protected under Title VII, the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Staver described the case as nationally consequential for churches, schools, ministries, and institutions.
Former U. S. Attorney John Fishwick, owner of Fishwick and Associates Law Firm, described the arguments as a constitutional clash: workplace anti-discrimination rights on one side, and Liberty’s religious freedom and its right to conduct its school on the other.
From the bench, one exchange highlighted how the court may test for boundaries. Staver recounted a judge asking whether Liberty would be forced to hire people specifically going through a gender transition that the school views as in direct opposition to its Christian faith, and Staver said the ACLU answered yes. That framing underscored how the judges may evaluate whether the legal theories offered would create broad obligations for religious employers beyond the specific employment dispute.
What Happens Next in the Liberty University appeal, and what should stakeholders watch?
A decision is not expected immediately. Staver and Fishwick each indicated the ruling will take months. Both also suggested that, regardless of the Fourth Circuit’s outcome, the losing side is likely to seek review at the U. S. Supreme Court.
Until a decision is issued, the key uncertainty is how the court will treat the nature of Zinski’s job duties and how it will apply or limit the ministerial exception in this context. Callahan’s courtroom argument pressed the idea that many non-religious roles at religious institutions remain covered by federal law, while Staver’s argument pressed for a broader understanding of what may count as a ministerial function within a religious university’s operations.
For employers, employees, and higher-education leaders, the practical stakes revolve around whether doctrinal requirements can be enforced across a wide range of positions, including those not primarily tasked with religious instruction or worship. For worker advocates and civil-rights groups, the stakes involve whether workplace protections extend fully to employees at religious institutions when the role is not directly religious in nature.
For now, the case remains a live test of how courts balance institutional religious autonomy with federal workplace protections, with the next major inflection point arriving when the Fourth Circuit issues its opinion on liberty university.
